Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5(i) Mr. Samir Kumar Sen Gupta, Learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondent No.1, contended that the proceedings instituted by the Petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking to prosecute the Respondent No.1 under Section 193 and other cognate provisions of the IPC for allegedly making false statement in his supplementary affidavit, had seriously impaired his estimation in his Organisation and in the eyes of the general public thereby making the Petitioner liable under Section 499 IPC. As per him, the case of the Respondent No.1 stood vindicated when the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. moved by the Petitioner was dismissed by Shri Sonam Topgay Bhutia vs. Shri Chander Pal and Another the Principal Sessions Judge on the ground that no offence had been committed by him necessitating an inquiry against him.

Shri Sonam Topgay Bhutia vs. Shri Chander Pal and Another

(g) Records of proceedings of Crl. Case No.32 of 2013 pertaining to the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which contained order dated 29-11- 2013 dismissing the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.;

(h) Application under the RTI Act submitted to the Director, Postal Services, Raj Bhawan, P.O. Gangtok dated 14-05-2013.

(v) It was as a consequence of such dismissal that led the Respondent No.1 to institute the proceeding under Section 500 IPC against the Petitioner for allegedly having defamed him.

(vi) It would appear from the order dated 29-11- 2013 dismissing application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., that there is no finding at all as to whether or not the statement in paragraph 4 affirmed by the Respondent No.1 that he had received the arbitral award on 20-07- 2011, was false. Thus, the allegation remains unaltered and factually correct in view of the information furnished by the Director, Postal Services, Sikkim State, Gangtok. Therefore, even though the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed albeit on an erroneous premise for the reasons aforesaid, no case under Sections 499/500 IPC can be said to have been made out against the Petitioner.

28. The other aspect of the case that adds to its special feature is that the present complaint appears to be a counter-blast to the Petitioner having filed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The records of the case, as discussed earlier, would reveal that as soon as the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner registered as Crl. Misc. Case No.32 of 2013, was dismissed vide order dated 29-11-2013, the Shri Sonam Topgay Bhutia vs. Shri Chander Pal and Another Respondent No.1 on the very day had filed an application under Section 250 read with Section 357 Cr.P.C. registered as Crl. Misc. Case No.1 of 2013 (Crl. Misc. Case No.55A of 2013) against the Petitioner seeking compensation for the accusation made against him. When this application was dismissed, the Respondent No.1 had preferred a revision in this Court being Crl.Rev.P. No.14 of 2014 but, that was also dismissed by order dated 25-11-2014. The Respondent No.1 then filed the present complaint being Private Complaint Case No.06 of 2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok. The relentlessness in the manner in which proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner would lead one to reasonably conclude that those as well as the present proceeding have been preferred with the oblique purpose of seeking retribution against the Petitioner.